1Introduction
It is no exaggeration to claim that the Book of Chronicles can be characterized to a high degree as an overview of Israel’s history written down with a “liturgical pen:” “The writer is concerned above everything else with the life of Israel centered in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem.”119 It is not difficult to list at least three dozen passages in 1-2 Chronicles, as well as substantial sections and chapters, in which liturgical elements are at the forefront. Interestingly, most of these texts are reckoned to belong to the so-called “chronistisches Sondergut,” material that is only found in the Book of Chronicles itself.
Over the past few centuries, the appreciation of worship in the Book of Chronicles has gone from one extreme to the other. In 1874, Julius Wellhausen expressed this view in clear terms: “David, the king and hero in the Books of Samuel, is the great cantor and liturgist, the choir leader of the Levites, and the founder of the order of worship in Chronicles.”120 A decade later, in 1885, his statement is much harsher:
See what Chronicles has made of David! The founder of the kingdom has become the founder of the temple and the public worship, the king and hero at the head of his companions has become the singer and master of ceremonies at the head of a swarm of priests and Levites; his clearly cut figure has become a feeble holy picture, seen through a cloud of incense.121
On the other hand, M. Patrick Graham, writing at the end of the twentieth century, places himself at the opposite side of the spectrum when he states:
Chronicles presents a vision of worship as a matter of the heart as much as of the hands, an occasion for joy, thankfulness, generosity, healing, reconciliation and a time for God to empower and enthuse his people. In short, it is a time for the reorientation of the human heart—to remember what God has done in the past and to infuse the present with hope for a future life of well-being and communion with God.123
This contribution, therefore, will outline some significant examples of how the Chronicler presents particular moments of Israel’s history from a liturgical point of view.122
2Solomon at Gibeon (2 Chronicles 1:1-6)
There are several data points within the text which indicate that 2 Chr 1:1 is definitely not to be considered a major caesura but, on the contrary, as the immediate continuation of 1 Chronicles 29. First, in 1 Chr 29:22-25 all relevant and main points relating to Solomon’s kingship have already been mentioned. Second, it is significant that 2 Chr 1:1 has the collocation “Solomon, son of David,” which is identical to 1 Chr 29:22.
124 A third significant point is the resemblance between 2 Chr 1:1b and 1 Chr 29:25a, both having the rare collocation “YHWH
made him exceedingly great”
which is found nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible.
Given the verbatim similarities between 2 Chr 1:1-13 and 1 Kgs 3:1-15, it seems almost certain that the Chronicler composed his Gibeon narrative on the basis of 1 Kings 3.125 All the more striking, therefore, are the differences between the two narratives. Whereas 1 Kgs 3: implies that King Solomon alone went to Gibeon to offer “since that was the principal high place,” the Chronicler has added a substantial explanation as to why Gibeon was so important: both “the tent of meeting” and “the tabernacle of YHWH” were there. Subsequently, the Chronicler turned Solomon’s personal visit into an official state affair: “all Israel,” “the whole assembly” (v. 3).126
The collocation “the high place at Gibeon” (2 Chr 1:3. 13) is mentioned twice before in the Book of Chronicles (1 Chr 16:39; 21:29). In these two passages we also find the notion משכן יהוה, “the tabernacle of YHWH,” as in 2 Chr 1:5. Everything points to the fact that these two earlier passages, which are “chronistisches Sondergut,” function as a conscientious preparation for, indeed as a legitimation of, Solomon’s visit to Gibeon.
In 2 Chr 1:3, however, the collocation “the tent of meeting” attracts attention, since it has a particular extension, viz. “of God” which is the more unique, since the notion “the tent of meeting of God”
is found nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible. One is inclined to think that by using the extension “of God,” the author wants to show that Gibeon in Solomon’s days was a
legitimate place of worship.
127This impression is reinforced by the fact that “the tent of meeting of God” is expressly traced back to
Moses, as was the case in 1 Chr 21:29 regarding the
Moreover, here in 2 Chr 1:3 Moses is explicitly called “the servant of YHWH.” And as if the mention of “the tent of meeting of God” (v. 3) and “the tabernacle of YHWH” (v. were not enough to underline the importance of Gibeon as a legitimate place of worship, the Chronicler situates in it “the bronze altar” (Exod 27:1-2 38:1-2) “that Bezalel has made” (Exod 31:2- 1 Chr 2:20).
Furthermore, the legitimacy of Solomon’s offering at Gibeon is explained with the help of a comment clause (v. which describes the actual situation in Jerusalem: “But David had brought the ark of God up from Kiriath-Jearim to the place that David had prepared for it; for he had pitched a tent for it in Jerusalem.”
It is no coincidence that subsequent to God’s revelation to Solomon (2 Chr 1:7-12) the pericope is concluded with a statement that links “the high place at Gibeon” with “Jerusalem,” “the tent of meeting,” and “Solomon’s reign over Israel” (2 Chr 1:13). It is not far-fetched, therefore, to assume that the twofold mention of “the tent of meeting” (1:3. 13) provides an excellent setting for God’s appearance to Solomon.
128 “The revelation at Gibeon is the final confirmation of Solomon’s accession.”
129 This is also shown by the meaningful
inclusio of
(2 Chr 1:1) and
2Chr 1:13).
130
